Obama’s eligibility: California court tossed the challenge out

On the other hand, the Orly Taitz, Stumbling and Bumbling Bros., Barnyard Bailout Circus provided belly laughs for everyone who watched it. How can such outstanding legal pratfall comedy possibly be replaced? “Boston Legal” can’t hold a candle to Orly Taitz.

CNN and other sources report that Judge Carter booted the suit late Thursday, noting that the question is one for Congress, and Congress’s earlier decision sticks.

The lawsuit represented the claim by the so-called “birthers” movement that Obama was not born in Hawaii – despite a birth certificate to the contrary – or that if he was, his citizenship was invalidated by living overseas as a child.

In a 30-page ruling, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter of California said his court lacked the jurisdiction to rule on a case intended to unseat a sitting president.

Carter’s ruling said the plaintiffs were trying to persuade him to “disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president.”

“The process for removal of a sitting president – removal for any reason – is within the province of Congress, not the courts,” the ruling said.

Carter’s ruling also noted that the plaintiffs “have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution.”

“Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this court is not unpatriotic,” the ruling said. “Quite the contrary, this court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”

Will Orly Taitz go quietly? How can she replace the daily adrenaline rush of knowing she’s earned the official ire of judges from Chesapeake Bay to Long Beach Harbor?

It may be unrelated, but sketchy early reports say Orly Taitz has climbed aboard a mylar balloon shaped like a flying saucer . . .

If by some sad twist of fate you missed the earlier comedy, you can check out an almost-running comedy commentary at Dispatches from the Culture Wars here, here, here, here, here and here. Oh, heck, Ed Brayton has more — but you get the general idea. Taitz doesn’t.

A birth certificate for a license? I’ve never had to do that — not in Utah, Maryland, or Texas. I wonder which states required that, say from 1975 on, and if Obama was in any of those states. Any readers from Hawaii, or Illinois?

Liked your ‘presumptions’ but there may be an easier one. A person who has a driver’s license (or a ‘non-driver’s driver’s license’ for people like me who only know back seats of cars) has to provide a copy of his birth certificate. I assume Obama has one or the other.

By the way, Jack, I have a standing offer to grant credence to anyone who can provide solid evidence to overcome any of the six presumptions on the public record that Obama’s eligible. You can see the six presumptions here — any time you get some evidence, check it out before you claim it’s accurate when it’s not, and if it checks out, let us know.

You have six hurdles to overcome to get a prima facie case against Obama. Holler when you overcome them.

The ‘argument’ was already being made — not by Republicans, but by Larry Johnson and the “PUMAs” — the supposed Hillary-supporting anti-Obama Democrats who also brought us the ravings of Larry Sinclair — and no Republican brought up or supported this idiocy during the campaign, not even the Count Chairmen who were sending out racist pictures, not Sarah Palin with all her “William Ayres” idiocy.

You know, last July I was actually a little concerned about the PUMAs. I worried they might represent genuinely offended, genuine Democrats.

But if you watch them over two or three issues, it becomes clear they know nothing about Hillary Clinton, nor do they share any of Hillary Clinton’s views. It’s fun to tweak them — though it’s more difficult since “Texas Darlin'” went behind a firewall — but I stopped being concerned when I checked and found that three of the first five I checked had registrations for the sites in Phoenix, Arizona, oddly with the same group that carried McCain’s websites.

The really fascinating thing for me is to watch comments on the site and see that some people can’t figure out the ruse, and that some people posting there are true Republicans who think that they’re talking to Democrats.

It’s cheap entertainment, but in the sense that it’s not very highbrow, nor very intelligent at all.

Between the PUMAs, the flu-vaccine-to-take-over-the-world ruse nuts, the birthers, and all the other nutball issues to emerge in the past year, it makes one sad that one didn’t invest in tinfoil much earlier.

And Sarah Palin? Whooooooooooooeeeeeee! If her star keeps rising in the Republican Party, the Whigs may be the only viable opposition to Democrats in 2012. (I’ll clean up as an long-established blogger on Millard Fillmore, wat?) I notice WorldNet Daily has already discounted Palin’s book to under $5.00 — and it’s not even released yet.

To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up.

I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the capital of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he traveled abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it.

In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.

Yes, Mike, Jack has boiler-plated his comments everywhere — not just to the magnificent crackpot you directed us to — who is:
a. now blasting Rush Limbaugh for selling out because he wouldn’t discuss the Larry Sinclair idiocy with a caller who lied about his reason for calling;

b. says “Rush, all of the talk radio hosts, our Representatives all know Obama was born in Kenya but play dumb. Representatives because of Obama’s color, talk show hosts and media because they were threatened”

and ends with
c. “Rush lied today. I think its the first lie I ever heard him tell.”

It is still worth demolishing his comments because the absurdly sad thing is that there are a ridiculously large number of people who think there might be some truth in this nonsense and some of them may stop by here. The hard-core ‘believers’ are unreachable, sure, like Creationists, but the doubters aren’t.

And even more important, despite the ravings of Taitz — and her supporters like The Post & EMail — her case ignores years of precedent and Constitutional rulings that someone one of whose parents is an American citizen in an American citizen — period! Therefore, even if her ‘Kenyan birth certificate’ were not such an obvious fraud that people were making them for everybody including Brian the Alaskan Moosecot of Mudflats this would not make President Obama ineligible.

One thing we forget is that the entire Republican Party had the opportunity to make this case. The ‘argument’ was already being made — not by Republicans, but by Larry Johnson and the “PUMAs” — the supposed Hillary-supporting anti-Obama Democrats who also brought us the ravings of Larry Sinclair — and no Republican brought up or supported this idiocy during the campaign, not even the Count Chairmen who were sending out racist pictures, not Sarah Palin with all her “William Ayres” idiocy.

(In fact, even the WorldNutDaily that is now cashing in like crazy on ‘birtherism’ dismissed the idea during the campaign.)

I would like to ask Jack how he can support a lawyer who not only fell for the fake Kenyan Birth Certificate — and continues to use it despite its proven falsity — but who also demanded a Judge recuse himself on the grounds that one of her supporters claimed to have seen Attorney General Holder in a local coffee shop across from the courthouse. (It should be noted that the supporter had never met Holder in person, only seen him on tv, described him in the affadavit as ‘small in stature’ — Holder is 6’3″ — and Holder was giving a speech 3000 miles away.)

But, at a time when some of the madness caused when the ‘Chinese Wall’ between far right politicians and the real ‘crazies’ came down is actually killing people (see Ed’s posts on the anti-vaxxers) ‘Orion-Orbiting’ Orly is at least providing us with some good laughs.

I suspect that, had there been any substantial evidence of a real tort, the judge would have found a way to grant standing and get a hearing.

Have you followed this case, Jack? Especially with the lunatic ravings of Taitz, how can anyone argue there is any merit to it? The evidence is astonishingly clear on analysis that Obama is perfectly eligible, as a Hawaiian born person.

CARTER DECISION FATAL FLAW: When all is said and done, ONE CLAIM MOST DEFINITELY SURVIVES, and that is Keyes’ claim for fraud committed by Candidate Obama before becoming President, which Judge Carter pretends away on the sole basis of Orly having filed same on 1/20/09 at an hour after Obama took the Oath. That’s a “red herring” because Obama took the valid Oath on 1/21/09, no Presidential immunity exists for tort fraud by Candidate Obama before becoming President, and “before-or-after” Oath filing by Orly is irrelevant for such case which does NOT seek Presidential removal, albeit Judge Carter pretends that IS the sole relief sought by Keyes.

To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up.

I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it.

In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.

You’re assuming the judiciary has authority prior to the president’s being sworn in — not by any stretch under the law or this ruling — and that Obama’s swearing in wasn’t completed because a word was muffed — not so in any oath decision I’ve ever seen.

You assume Orly Taitz has an iota of evidence and not a wholly fact-free case that is also weak on the law.

Congress is the authority that ultimately determines eligibility. Congress ruled on the issue, in effect, when it didn’t consider the case to have any merit and didn’t bother to investigate it past the prima facie showing that Obama was born in Honolulu. To go beyond that showing, someone would have to have very solid evidence that the entire state government of Hawaii is caught up in the fraud and has been for nearly 50 years.

Not only is that completely crazy talk, there’s not an iota of evidence to support it.

So Congress’s decisions to accept the candidates, accept the Electoral College count and certify the winner, rule.

Carter in an accurate nutshell: There’s no case against Obama’s eligibility, and had there been, Congress was the place to make it. A federal district court is not going to challenge Congress’s de facto ruling without spectacular evidence, and Taitz does not have any evidence at all.

CARTER IN A NUTSHELL: Expanded Orly Taitz default judgment case against CANDIDATE Obama for fraud into a Presidential Removal case against PRESIDENT Obama (promising a trial), but then ruled the Court lacks said Presidential Removal authority, not only dismissing the Judge-expanded Presidential Removal case (reneging on the trial), but throwing out Orly’s Candidate fraud case as well — all this on a red herring that Orly’s case was filed 1/20/09 after Obama was sworn in on 1/20/09 despite Obama was sworn in on 1/21/09 and despite the Orly-alleged fraud was committed by Candidate Obama prior to becoming President and for which there is no Presidential immunity in any case. Thus Judge Carter set up and knocked down his own straw man, and misstated fact and law to bury Orly’s actual case. Pretty nifty!!!

Dead Link?

We've been soaking in the Bathtub for several months, long enough that some of the links we've used have gone to the Great Internet in the Sky.
If you find a dead link, please leave a comment to that post, and tell us what link has expired.
Thanks!